tv [untitled] November 14, 2013 5:00pm-5:31pm PST
>> the sea wall lot are with you? >> it's different -- the two sides of the street are different. >> even though it's port property? >> yes. the sea wall lots have a different jurisdiction essentially what is over water. >> and would the port commission make recommendation. >> yes because they own the property. >> commissioner moore. >> jurisdiction falls within the east side and the west side of the embarcadero which means the west side of the embarcadero is within the commission's jurisdiction. all sea walls fall within that and with a positive side these two projects are strongly interlinked and i don't think -- >> no. >> i see this forum and the ability for the public to speak is a great opportunity to bring
this project to everybody interested and this is the place where people can make the public comments, where people can view all of the exhibits. not everything can come to the cac or port meetings in order to participate. >> and just to reinforce you will have to review zoning changes for both side of the street and make recommendations on the planning code changes to the board. >> thank you. thank you. >> i would also add i believe over the pier property you have the granting body for conditional use changes theorizations. >> okay. >> commissioner hillis. >> i don't know if this was mentioned but timing now what is the latest on the timing as far as when these actions will be before us? i know it's early to predict that. >> sure. we are hoping to bring it back for certification by
the end of 2014. >> anything else? okay. so i mean i think -- you mentioned when we're ready to hear more on the sea wall lot. i think we're ready when you're ready, so we have been hearing from the community loud and clear we want to advance so they want advanced notice of design and what the program is going to be and i think we feel the same way. congratulations. and look forward to seeing you again. >> thank you. >> commissioners that will place you on item 14 for 2012.0759dv. at 2526 california street/33 perine place dw discretionary review. please note that variation for the case was heard by the zoning administrator on
june 26, 2013. the zoning administrator has taken the variance under advisement and a decision is pending the commission's action on the discretionary review request. if those persons exiting the room could do so quietly we would appreciate it as we do have additional proceedings under way. >> jonas let's take a two minute break and we get a quorum back and they pack that up.
planning commission for november 14, 2013 and the commission doesn't tolerate any disruption of any kind. please silent any mobile devices and when speaking before the commission please state your name for the record. commissioners i have read into the record number 14 and the corresponding notations. >> thank you. glen cabreros department staff and the project is located at 2526 california street/33 perine place. this is a through lot located in the upper fillmore neighborhood comicial district and the height and bulk district. discretionary review has been filed on the new construction applications, both of which are proposing new construction of two two unit buildings four stories each. all of the concerns are light and air access, building scale, code
compliance with the setback and also the amount of lot coverage of the building in proportion with the lot size. in working with the project sponsor and the department our feedback is propose two buildings to maintain both block faces on perine place and california street. on california street it's a four story two unit building which is built to the full front facade which is more characteristic of the california street block patterns and also being that california street is a wider street. along perine place it is also a four story two unit building proposed there but with more mod laigz of the front facade and setbacks to address the smaller scale and narrowness perine place and addressing some of the light and air issues that were brought up.
just to mention to the commission the code complying -- as proposed now would require a variance with the rear beyond and it's between the buildings. the code compliant project would place it along perine place or california street. in placing the yard where it is now the proposed building that places along perine place their main rear wall essentially lines up with the rear wall of the requester's building and provides relief of the yard to the adjacent requester's rear yard. at this time the department proposes -- would like the commission to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. dr requester.
>> commissioners, good evening. my name is roger majorren and 19 and 21 perine place and i'm the dl requester. based on the planning department's recommendation mr. williams tells me that i have a one and a hundred chance of being successful. does he know something i don't? am i wasting my time here? i trust the commission will render a fair decision based on the facts. that's why i am here. clearly that recommendation does not take into account the additional
materials submitted on november 4. these additional materials identified two significant areas of the planning code which are being violated. one, the developer cannot use section 134 to justify two buildings on the lot. that section requires that in order to have two buildings on any lot the adjoining lot on each side must also be two lots and both must have two buildings at each one. there is only one true lot adjoining the subject property and that is only one building. therefore the subject lot is precluded from having two buildings. this rule is confirm the in the interpretation sections of the code. under code section 718 the zoning for the area in question primarily
commercial. there is story control and effect on the lower three stories and residential use is encouraged only above the second story. the developers making the entire lot residential with parking on the ground floor. [inaudible] cannot be found in the code. in order to promote continuous frontage drive up and most automobile uses are prohibited the proposed use also violates the master plan. it is inexplicable why the code requirements are not being enforced. the pending request for rear yard modification shouldn't be ground grounded. this is new construction on an empty lot. the request maximizes the building at the expense of neighbor's light and air access. the access to
light and air remains unsolved. i am unable to distinguish between walls and setbacks. this will be totally unique to the subject block. the old easement that improves means of escape from my premises in case of fire is evidence by a gate between the properties and this would eliminate this easement. i ask that the fire marshal be asked to evaluate this dangerous situation as being ignored. under other issues and considerations it is stated that agreement was reached between the neighbors who voiced opposition and project sponsor. although i am the sole dr requester there is only one neighbor with whom agreement was reached. other neighbors who spoke at the june 26 hearing are still unhappy with the subject
development as are my tenants. i voice the opposition for that hearing. i don't see that letter in any package. i would like to say i first talk with mr. williams when his client was westerly neighbor. he told me in return for the client's withdraw of all opposition the developer would perform certain work on the client's building. [inaudible] the protestors of this conversation. mr. williams asked if there were things i would like done on my building and i mind now that mr. williams is the developer's lawyer. surprise. i question these ethnics. in my day this would constitute conflict of interest. i am confident you ladies and gentlemen have noticed these points but i feel it prudent to
restate them. based on the facts i trust you will support enforcement of the san francisco planning code and master plan and render justice decision. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i appreciate your consideration. >> other speakers in support of the dr requester? okay. seeing none project sponsor. >> good evening vice president wu members of the commission. i am steve williams and represent the project sponsor john strickland who is here with dave sternberg of the sternberg architect firm. in may of this
year i represented the families who have owned the building to the west directly next door since 1965 and just to give you a little perspective on this very busy corner. here is a photograph. it's also in my brief at page five. here's the family's building. here's the subject building and next door is the chevron station. molly stones is on a conner and another gas station there. they started out with grave concerns about the project and they attended the pre-application meeting, and the variance hearing and after that we followed mr. sanchez's advice and meet and confer about the project and see if we could come to a agreement. these developers were willing to give a tremendous amount. they redesigned the neighborhood essentially to help the neighbors and these neighbors
live there. doreen who teaches the dance class for my daughter lives next door and they made changes that were acceptable to these residents and mr. strickland who is a developer in town for a long time never been to a dr and john asked me if i would help him with it and reach out to mr. matchen and come to an agreement with the neighbor to the east. i have spoken with him numerous times. he is never available to meet at the site. he lives out of town and he was traveling so that was difficult. they didn't come to the pre-application meeting or the variance hearing so it's difficult to assess exactly what the complaints are. the primary first objection and one you heard again tonight is fire exiting, a claim over a proscriptive easement over the
property and if you look at the letters sent in that mr. matchen sent to the dr and that's what they talk about. we need fire exiting on your property. john tried to come up with a solution. he tried to design some sort of sprinkler system and shoot water over the property line to keep the exiting corridor wet and presumably safe. here is the exiting corridor between the buildings. it's rather wide. this is the expressed fears. this is in the back, but again there was no response whether that was acceptable or something we could build. the objections say it's not code compliant and don't meet the guidelines and the
table submitted by the other side is permitted use in all three levels in this neighborhood commercial district and i think that is the problem and there is a fundamental misunderstanding what is code compliant in a neighborhood commercial district and that's what this is. it's not a residential district. the lot design, the uses proposed and that is code compliant and the code would allow a greater density and although the guidelines do not apply in a project but it's vetted with those considerations in mind. the project was reviewed and vetted by the urban design team and u dat and the pacific heights residents association and they have no objection. i attached their letter as exhibit three. other letters are attached as exhibit five. the overall design of the building
fronting on perine place and on california as you heard that was recommended by the department. there's no objection to the demolition and so something has to be built here and we haven't a clear what would be acceptable to the other side. i had numerous conversations with mr. matchen and he never told me what is acceptable and you will see in my submittal and this type of building is and articulated and unbroken and this a collaboration between the staff and the neighbors that live there and the design team and we're asking for the commission's support of this project. thank you. i would like to bring up the project architect and i believe also that the project sponsor mr. strickland is going to say a few words.
>> good evening. dave sternberg . i really don't have that much to add. i assume you have looked at the drawings of the buildings and that you understand the situation. again i am just reiterating quickly. we worked as hard as we could through all of the processes, meeting all of the neighbors, the neighborhood groups. we have gone through a couple of major revisions of this project to satisfy planning staff and a lot of the udat input. we feel it's a great project. in fact there's some neighbors here also to support the project. we feel very strongly that to have two buildings, one fronting on perine place will make a nicer neighborhood on the alley rather than just rear ends of a building and more of a service fear to it. there are people that live on the alley that
have the same feeling so i'm here for any questions or any further comments you want to direct to me. thanks. >> thank you. >> hello my name is john strickland and i i'm the project sponsor. thank you for hearing this today. i built family housing in san francisco for over 20 years. i remember the first time i came to the city and i realized it was going to be my home and i feel extremely fortunate i have been doing this until today without appearing before your commission in this process. i always sought to achieve a balance between neighbors and neighborhoods and the city and if my role is done right it have a positive effect on the city, on the neighborhood by allowing new families to be welcomed with quality housing. i work hard to build consensus around the properties in the area. i received support for
my neighbors -- concerned neighbors of perine place and california and from the neighborhood association and the department. in order to do so i have cut sections of the building beyond the envelope and have improved design. i have unable to appease the dr requester but nonetheless i design the building with fashion smaller than what is allowed and meet his needs for light and air and given more than the code requires in order to be a good neighbor. i believe my proposed project is good for the neighborhood, respect the mid-block open space, respect the neighboring buildings and meets requirements of planning and pride well quality housing stock for the city. thank you. >> thank you. >> speakers in support of the project.
>> sir, you've already had your opportunity. you will have an opportunity to rebut of two minutes but right now we're calling up members of the public that are in support. >> [inaudible] >> (calling speakers). >> hello. my name is judy kumer and my husband and i live across from the 2526 california street with our three children and moved in a couple of months ago and bought the home recently and as you imagine we were interested in the new construction project that would be across the street and had numerous meetings with john strickland and reviewed the buildings. he's always been open and community minded and listened to our concerns and as mentioned before he was responsive in the design changes to address those concerns and
we feel the result is a building that is compatible to the neighborhood and properly size in scale and thoughtful and considerate of the neighbors. the setback and prevents a looming feeling on perine place which was a concern we have. the midblock open space gives a feeling of smaller separate homes versus one giant ugly apartment building which is something we were also concerned about so we felt that john didn't have to give up valuable square footage. we know how much it costs to live in the city and he did that because of our concerns and treated like a residential street which is what we want. we don't want a parking lot and the butt of the garages and basically a crime pit. anytime you have a alley way it attracts crime and
having a residential feeling on perine place are more eyes that deter illegal activity and strengthens the stret feel. we just moved in but there is foliage, flower gardens and neighbors. i feel you could walk anytime. you see neighbors walking their dogs and replacing the old decrypted building will strengthen the community and bring in families because there's enough space for kids and also increase the safety of the neighborhood and as a mom and a neighbor i want to support this project and john met with another neighbor and he couldn't come today because of child care issues but he wanted to pass along his support also. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is david. i
represent the [inaudible] corporation and the owners of the property right next and to the west of the project. this a rental unit, three story, three different units. all right. my bottom line and your take away is that we recommend the project. okay. one of the things that i'm not sure about is what is really expected, and what my objectives should be during my presentation here. i have a few minutes to make some suggestions. all right. and really there's only one objective i have and obligation to myself and that is due to